The Bidding Wars on GunBroker.com

It seems there is a slight problem in Barry's plan to rid America of every single gun: gun manufacturers have sold their 2013 production to distributors and bidding wars have come to GunBroker.com.

If one compares the illustrious years of one Barry Obama to say a Bill Clinton, the number of firearms circulating (an appropriate description) in the U.S. has risen some 40%. One can now find lines forming in WalMart around the sporting goods area when a new shipment of weapons is scheduled to arrive.

Boils down to this guys: how many nuclear warheads does one need to remove a nation from the face of the earth? In similar fashion, those who live freedom in America, though they do not need six assault rifles per person to fight the battle, feel more comfortable when in a position of overkill.

conservativejock saidIt seems there is a slight problem in Barry's plan to rid America of every single gun...

Yeah, the slight problem being that no such plan exists. Except in the paranoid minds of NRA members. Please quote this plan from official government sources, not from hysterical NRA propaganda, and certainly not from discredited "news" outlets like FOX.

TigerTim saidRather excellent evidence that the NRA is merely a front for the commercial interests of gun manufacturers, don't you think?

How so? Hopefully the "excellent evidence" will be presented with competent analysis that the RJ member seems to be proud of (unless I have you confused with someone else) - and without snarkiness thrown in.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/01/new-evidence-that-the-nra-might-be-just-another-corporate-front/267244/The left-wing muckrakers at Mother Jones are out with a piece today that strikes directly at this question of whether the NRA is truly a grassroots force, a glorified corporate front, or something in-between. The magazine reports that George Kollitides II, CEO of the country's largest gun manufacturer, the Freedom Group, sits on one of the organization's most influential internal leadership bodies, known as the Nominating Committee. Freedom Group is the parent company of such firearms makers as Bushmaster, producer of the wildly popular rifle used in the Newtown massacre, and Remington, one of the oldest names in the arms business. And so it seems the gun industry doesn't merely influence the NRA via its largesse, but that one of its most high-profile executives actually helps steer it from the inside.

While the nine-seat Nominating Committee doesn't call the shots at the NRA, it does more or less get to decide who does. The body picks candidates for the NRA's 76-member board of directors, which in turn oversees the groups staff and more than $200 million budget. The directors are technically elected by the NRA's rank-and-file members, who can also petition to nominate candidates. But Mother Jones reports that 71 percent of the current board -- a group that includes such notables as rocker Ted Nugent, Utah Jazz basketball great Karl Malone, actor/mustache Tom Selleck, and anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist -- were either nominated,endorsed, or selected by the Nominating Committee....And yet, the corporate-front theory is still probably too simplistic. As the Washington Post reported Sunday, the NRA was transformed from a a mainstream sportsman's association into a hard-core anti-gun control lobby in the late 1970s after its most radical members rebelled and booted the their long-time leadership. Ever since then, the group's energetic right flank has pressed its leadership to take ever-more uncompromising policy stances, particularly when the stakes were highest. Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, who horrified many with his post Sandyhook press conference advocating more armed guards in schools, was himself elevated to current role during the legislative battle to stop the Brady Bill, a period when the NRA membership to elected a host of 2nd amendment absolutists to its board of directors.

It's very hard to disentagle the interests of the gun industry from the views of gun rights purists. But ultimately, it may not be necessary either. Polling data suggests that the public at large is much more agreeable to gun control today than the NRA itself. No matter who it specifically represents, its views appear to be solidly out of the mainstream.

http://snohomishobserver.com/2013/01/31/nra-a-front-group-for-gun-makers/ The NRA insists in its publications that it is “not a trade organization” and that it is “not affiliated with any firearm or ammunition manufacturers or with any businesses that deal in guns and ammunition.” That is a lie. NRA’s corporate patrons include 22 firearms manufacturers, 12 of which are makers of assault weapons with household names like Beretta and Ruger, according to a 2011 analysis by the Violence Policy Center. The report, drawn from the NRA’s own disclosures, also identified gifts from dozens of firms that profit from high-capacity magazines, including Browning and Remington. Donors from the industry and other dark reaches of the corporate world – including Xe, the new name of the mercenary group Blackwater – had funneled up to $52 million to the NRA in recent years.

More disturbing, the NRA receives funds directly from the sales of arms and ammunition. The “Round-Up” program, launched by arms retailer Midway USA, encourages customers to increase their purchases to the nearest dollar and sends the extra coin to the association. Midway customers alone have contributed nearly $8 million in this way to support NRA’s lobbying division, the Institute for Legislative Action.

I just quote that link as examples of evidence that the NRA has deep ties to the gun industry, to the point where it's being dominated by the latter. Whether it's "new" is irrelevant to your previous post asking for evidence. (It's new, BTW, because the names of the nominating committee weren't publicized before)

TigerTim saidRather excellent evidence that the NRA is merely a front for the commercial interests of gun manufacturers, don't you think?

How so? Hopefully the "excellent evidence" will be presented with competent analysis that the RJ member seems to be proud of (unless I have you confused with someone else) - and without snarkiness thrown in.

Quoting your request for evidence. I can't do snarkiness any more...you make this place so annoying.

TigerTim saidRather excellent evidence that the NRA is merely a front for the commercial interests of gun manufacturers, don't you think?

How so? Hopefully the "excellent evidence" will be presented with competent analysis that the RJ member seems to be proud of (unless I have you confused with someone else) - and without snarkiness thrown in.

Quoting your request for evidence. I can't do snarkiness any more...you make this place so annoying.

There seems to be an issue here. You are defending TigerTim the same way you defend yourself. You both cite something as specific evidence to make a point. I point out the weakness of your evidence, or in TT's case that you quoted, the utter ridiculousness of his evidence citation. The way you try to defend your or his point about the evidence is to show other evidence to support the same conclusion. But that misses the point. My criticism focused on the relevance of the specific evidence you cited, not whether the conclusion was valid and can be supported by other evidence.

Ignore the MotherJones article then if you insist. Do you agree from the other evidence quoted that the NRA is a front for gun manufacturers? (and no, don't do another` ad-hoc hypothesis like "the NRA and gun owners have the same interests")

TigerTim saidRather excellent evidence that the NRA is merely a front for the commercial interests of gun manufacturers, don't you think?

How so? Hopefully the "excellent evidence" will be presented with competent analysis that the RJ member seems to be proud of (unless I have you confused with someone else) - and without snarkiness thrown in.

Quoting your request for evidence. I can't do snarkiness any more...you make this place so annoying.

I guess I should make it absolutely explicit that my original point was—and it was admittedly rather a snide point [since topathlete is nothing but snide, I'm sure he wouldn't mind]—merely that if sales of guns have dramatically increased due to scaremongering from the NRA, then perhaps the NRA is indeed acting in the interests of gun manufacturers.

TigerTim saidRather excellent evidence that the NRA is merely a front for the commercial interests of gun manufacturers, don't you think?

How so? Hopefully the "excellent evidence" will be presented with competent analysis that the RJ member seems to be proud of (unless I have you confused with someone else) - and without snarkiness thrown in.

Quoting your request for evidence. I can't do snarkiness any more...you make this place so annoying.

I guess I should make it absolutely explicit that my original point was—and it was admittedly rather a snide point [since topathlete is nothing but snide, I'm sure he wouldn't mind]—merely that if sales of guns have dramatically increased due to scaremongering from the NRA, then perhaps the NRA is indeed acting in the interests of gun manufacturers.

The real scare-mongering was on the part of congressional Democrats and the various state legslatures threatening to ban commonly used firearms because of magazine capacity, cosmetic features, etc.

Their retoric has matched and exceeded what the NRA was saying of them pre-election.

Small wonder that people have been buying everything in stock on gun stores shelves and that manufacturers are back up months on production.

It's triggered a gun buying panic like nothing ever seen before, and it's made gunowners of people who wouldn't otherwise have purchased a gun. Many of these people are inexperienced and untrained in usage and safety, so there will be an increase in accidents -- after firearms accidents have been decline for years.

TigerTim saidRather excellent evidence that the NRA is merely a front for the commercial interests of gun manufacturers, don't you think?

How so? Hopefully the "excellent evidence" will be presented with competent analysis that the RJ member seems to be proud of (unless I have you confused with someone else) - and without snarkiness thrown in.

Quoting your request for evidence. I can't do snarkiness any more...you make this place so annoying.

I guess I should make it absolutely explicit that my original point was—and it was admittedly rather a snide point [since topathlete is nothing but snide, I'm sure he wouldn't mind]—merely that if sales of guns have dramatically increased due to scaremongering from the NRA, then perhaps the NRA is indeed acting in the interests of gun manufacturers.

The real scare-mongering was on the part of congressional Democrats and the various state legslatures threatening to ban commonly used firearms because of magazine capacity, cosmetic features, etc.

Their retoric has matched and exceeded what the NRA was saying of them pre-election.

Small wonder that people have been buying everything in stock on gun stores shelves and that manufacturers are back up months on production.

It's triggered a gun buying panic like nothing ever seen before, and it's made gunowners of people who wouldn't otherwise have purchased a gun. Many of these people are inexperienced and untrained in usage and safety, so there will be an increase in accidents -- after firearms accidents have been decline for years.

There are a few significant new players entering the gun market in order to ride the current ObamaLamaDingDong wave of gun purchases. The shortage in the gun store is actually beginning to abate. There are seventeen new AR manufacturing plants online as well as a dozen or so handgun manufacturers.

Training is an issue. In large metropolitan areas gun ranges are cranking new trainees at an amazing pace. Of course, one would hope that the more liberal metropolitan areas will remain as ignorant as ever in such matters.